Latest poll has him at 4 percent among GOP voters.

It probably should not be a surprise that Sen. Rand Paul would be performing well in the state (Michigan) that brought us libertarian conservative Rep. Justin Amash. The fact that John Yob, Paul's national political director (recently seen getting punched by a Marco Rubio aide), is a political consultant from the state certainly doesn't hurt either.

The Paul campaign's apparent heavy investment in a weekend straw poll at the Mackinac Republican Leadership Conference in Michigan paid off with a win. From The Detroit News:

The Paul campaign celebrated the straw poll victory as a sign that the libertarian-minded senator's presidential bid remains alive, despite registering single-digit numbers in national polls.

"This is an organization test that indicates that (Paul) will over-perform in other organizational contests such as Iowa, Nevada, Minnesota and other caucus states that come before the March 8 Michigan primary," said John Yob, Paul's national political director and a Grand Rapids-based GOP consultant.

The candidate said winning the straw poll — which he did in a similar vote on the island in 2013 — was an honor, "as it is voted on by the most influential Michigan GOP members, grassroots leaders and party activists from throughout the country…"

The top five presidential candidates in the straw poll each barnstormed Mackinac Island Friday and Saturday, engaging in retail politicking among 2,200 Michigan Republicans attending the state party's 31st biennial leadership conference. The top two vote-getters, Paul and Fiorina, were the last candidates to speak Saturday night at the Grand Hotel.

A pollster noted that Paul's campaign in Michigan brings in a lot of "true believers" of the candidate to vote in the straw poll. Sounds a lot like his dad in that respect. The other four GOP candidates who attended the conference were Carly Fiorina, Gov. John Kasich, Sen. Ted Cruz, and former Gov. Jeb Bush. That's also the order they placed in the straw poll.

Even if the event was particularly Paul-friendly, he probably needed the pick-me-up. After last week's debate, Nick Gillespie noted that Paul had used his platform to promote libertarian-friendly positions like reducing direct intervention overseas, not immediately tossing out the Iran deal, and pulling back on the war on drugs and mass incarceration.

The reward for Paul's well-articulated deviation from hardline orthodoxy was being called the debate's big loser in one post-debate poll. Gravis Marketing polled 1,337 registered Republicans for One America News Network. Their poll had Carly Fiorina as the clear winner of the debate with 33 percent of the vote. But when they asked Republicans who they thought lost the debate, the big loser was Rand Paul, getting a thumbs down by 32 percent of those polled. Donald Trump came in next, with 17 percent calling him the debate's loser. (Interestingly, Trump also came in second place as the debate's winner, which helps illustrate the polarization the GOP is struggling with.) More than half the Republicans polled said they had a less favorable opinion of Paul after the debate.

What could account for this gap between what the polled Republicans say versus what libertarian conservatives might have perceived from Paul? The answer may be down in the poll's demographics. When asked to describe their politics, 47 percent called themselves "very conservative," as opposed to "slightly conservative" (31 percent) or "moderate" (20 percent). And 75 percent said they do not consider themselves to be members of the Tea Party. In addition, 70 percent said they've already decided they were going to vote the party line come the 2016 election. Also, the largest age demographic participating in the poll were past retirement age. The 65-plus crowd constituted 38 percent of the vote.

Fiorina may seem like an "outsider" from her lack of government experience, but her emphasis on the Planned Parenthood fight, going after Hillary Clinton, and her very hawkish attitude toward dealing with other nations puts her right in the midst of a good chunk of traditional conservatism. She deviated to support Paul's ideas that we should let states experiment with their own drug laws and to reduce mass incarceration, but added a huge caveat that drugs are really, really, really bad.

The latest CNN/ORC poll has Paul bringing in a mere 4 percent of the vote among Republican candidates. That puts him in eighth place, currently. But hey, he's still beating Gov. Chris Christie, so that's something.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

Perhaps. But that might kill any future presidential ambitions (granted I think the chances of him ever being president or even getting the GOP nomination are really low). Has there every been an instance of a candidate running for president, falling on their face and not even competing, and then winning a nomination in a future year? I know people like Romney, McCain, Reagan, etc. ran and lost prior to winning the nomination, but they were all serious contenders in the race.

The civil service is essentially a fourth, unchecked branch of the government.

For example, it’s widely known now that the EPA has been colluding with enviornmental groups to set public policy, in a manner far more destructive than the sort alleged against the Cheney energy policy group in the early days of the Bush II presidency. This collusion included working together to create the appearance of scientific consensus and a value free consideration of public comments while utterly undermining them as the group lurched toward a predetermined conclusion.

Now, let’s say you were president and want to reign this in. How are you going to do it? How are you going to cope with the PR campaign and pressure put on congressmen to prevent you from pressuring the EPA to allow children to be poisoned? How are you going to deal with the PR campaign of whistleblowers levelling false allegations that you are keeping them from doing their job properly?

Now imagine that coming from the army, coming from the border patrol, coming from the justice department, coming from the business community, teh education blob, the park service, the FDA.

Obama allowed these guys to run free of most lets or hindrances.And they will not surrender such power. They will scream to the American People that your actions are making the people less safe, that thanks to you, they are no longer protecting the people. And it will work.

It may give you the sads, but I think anytime someone takes the time to put together a coherent argument that actually answers the question asked, they should be thanked. I do appreciate his analysis, even though I think he is wrong, it is still nice to see a well reasoned response.

How do you do it? Obviously, you run on doing these things. And if you manage to get elected, then the majority of the voters are more likely to be behind you when you actually try to do it. But if you are a stealth candidate, hiding what you actually intend to do, then you are right that the civil service will quite easily overcome and defeat you.

I am still pissed out of my mind at Gary Johnson for walking way from a guaranteed seat in the Senate. I get a woody thinking about a Rand/Johnson/Amash triad ham-stringing legislation for 30+ year careers.

I dunno about this. Gary has been getting more radical since he left public office. I fear that holding a Senate seat would have the opposite effect. Better for our cause that her run as the LP candidate and loose, yet be able to speak freely and introduce more people to the common sense positions of the LP.

Even Ford and Carter did a better job at cutting government. Their combined presidential terms account for an increase of 1.4%?compared with Reagan’s 3%?in the government’s take of “national income.” And in nominal terms, there has been a 60% increase in government spending, thanks mainly to Reagan’s requested budgets, which were only marginally smaller than the spending Congress voted.

The budget for the Department of Education, which candidate Reagan promised to abolish along with the Department of Energy, has more than doubled to $22.7 billion, Social Security spending has risen from $179 billion in 1981 to $269 billion in 1986. The price of farm programs went from $21.4 billion in 1981 to $51.4 billion in 1987, a 140% increase. And this doesn’t count the recently signed $4 billion “drought-relief” measure. Medicare spending in 1981 was $43.5 billion; in 1987 it hit $80 billion. Federal entitlements cost $197.1 billion in 1981?and $477 billion in 1987.

“Their combined presidential terms account for an increase of 1.4%?compared with Reagan’s 3%”

Hold on here. Reagan’s tax cuts grew the economy a great deal, and increased tax revnue-could that not account for an increase in the take of ‘national income’? Does the ‘government take’ here include only the federal government or include states?

” in nominal terms, there has been a 60% increase in government spending, thanks mainly to Reagan’s requested budgets, which were only marginally smaller than the spending Congress voted.”

I’m fuzzy on the back and forth but didn’t Reagan have shutdown fights with Congress? Maybe those ‘requested budgets’ were the compromise?

I do not want to hagiograph Reagan. His WoD ramp up and some other things were very bad but he was still very good for freedom. He ended the Fairness Doctrine and suspended the Community Reinvestment Act for a couple things. Those won’t show up in ‘national income’. He also let Volker be awesome.

And yet federal spending and the deficit skyrocketed during his term, and the War on Drugs was ramped up, among other things. Reagan might not have been the bogeyman the left makes him out to be, but he wasn’t anything to write home about from a libertarian POV

Hell no, I’m not cutting him any slack. His continued war boner pisses me off, particularly since he or anyone he knows won’t be paying for the intervention he advocates and won’t be going to carry it out either. I’ve been in the military, so I recognize the damage the actions he supports causes to soldiers and their families, not to mention the places we are sent to fight. I’d imagine the closest he’s been to a military engagement is seeing the Expendables on television. The least he can do is get his facts straight before typing.

“His continued war boner pisses me off, particularly since he or anyone he knows won’t be paying for the intervention he advocates and won’t be going to carry it out either. I’ve been in the military, so I recognize the damage the actions he supports causes to soldiers and their families, not to mention the places we are sent to fight. ”

It is clear that your emotionalism makes you unsuited for objectively judging foreign policy endeavors.

And your complete lack of context does the same. Your assumption of emotionalism is laughable. It’s not emotionalism to recognize the damage done by the policies you advocate. War is not an abstract concept. It’s a real thing that destroys human lives on both sides, even when done for the best reasons.

The world is not a better, freer place and America is not better off after 14 years of the war on terror, let alone many more decades of interventionalism in the Middle East. And yet you continue to advocate for more and more war, which is particularly galling given that you want all of this done on your behalf without any risk to your life or treasure. I suppose you are capable of “objectively judging foreign policy endeavors” since you are in no way affected. Still, since it’s the lives of my countrymen and my money that you want to spend, fuck off, slaver.

Reagan talked about a hypothetical free trade agreement around 79-80, but just about all of the negotiating and arrangement was done during the Bush I administration. Reagan and Mulroney negotiated a Canada-US free trade agreement, which you could view as a NAFTA precursor if you like, but NAFTA wasn’t Reagan’s doing. That’s leaving aside whether or not NAFTA has been a positive for the United States, which is far from a given.

From a libertarian perspective Reagan wasn’t that great. Spending skyrocketed, government expanded, and future presidents, as Dick Cheney said, learned that “deficits don’t matter”. The economic good times that happened later on during his presidency were not very much his doing (neither was the recession of 81-82 that seems to be forgotten when discussing the Reagan good times). He introduced some tax cuts, but also presided over the raising of some taxes too. Members of his administration engaged in the illegal arming of Iran with American weapons in order to fund the Contras, a group with a horrible human rights record. He also supported many other anti-communist groups that arguably were as bad as the communists against which they were fighting. He also expanded the scope of the war on drugs and signed a bill strong-arming states into making the legal drinking age 21.

On the positive side, he ended the price controls on oil and did get some taxes reduced. He does get some credit for taking a harder line against the Soviet Union as well as communism in general. He gets way too much credit for the collapse of the Soviet Union, however. His firing of the air traffic controllers was also a positive step.

“He also supported many other anti-communist groups that arguably were as bad as the communists against which they were fighting.”

Oh puh-leaze. No one was as bad as the commies, and further it doesn’t matter: the only legit goal of US foreign policy is protecting Americans, in this context, from the Soviet Union. Nicaragua and Americans are vastly better off for helping the Contras. That’s not to say that arming Iran or the way that Reagan carried out that affair was okay.

No one was as bad as the commies? Seriously? You need to go do some reading on the anti-communist groups in the Americas and the egregious human rights violations they committed. Then again, I suppose this only reflects your seeming worldview. Any amount of horror and destruction of human life is okay as long as long as the ultimate goal is attained.

Furthermore, protecting Americans from the Soviet Union does not justify aid to all of these groups. The Sandinistas did not endanger Americans in any measurable way. The overthrow of that government occurred at the ballot box in any event, not because the Contras won a military victory.

It’s hard to make a case that Americans are better off because we armed the Contras, especially given the absolute breakdown of the rule of law that went on and likely emboldened future presidents to do similar lawless activities. Moreover, Nicaragua basically has nothing to do with America’s prosperity, so your assertion is suspect, to say the least.

Despite Reagan’s rhetoric, he was far from a shrink-the-government crusader, so it’s hard to understand how he compares to Rand Paul, who has gone on record as being for the elimination of entire departments. I lived through the Reagan years and the view from conservatives that it was some kind of golden age is baffling. The guy gave a great speech and looked damn good on television. He was also a tough bastard, getting right back to work after being shot. But this idea that somehow he stared down the tax and spend congress or beat back the civil service is just wrong.

People remember his very noisy victory over the air traffic controllers’ union, and choose to ignore the gigantic expansion in $$$ and powers of the federal government during his administration.

Plus, Wall Street did rather well, and the Carter days of 12.65% inflation and 14.21% mortgages (I used FreddieMac’s data; both are rates at November 1980) were a thing of the past. Oh, and unemployment at 7.5%, though that was set to get a lot worse during the recession of 82.

What are the current stats, were the Feds not intentionally screwing with the data? Mortgages would be great, but what’s inflation and unemployment, if we were still calculating them the way we did at the ass end of the Carter Administration?

“, the best thing that could happen for classical liberals/libertarians/anarchists is Rand Paul bowing out gracefully…”

I really don’t understand why so many people are convinced Rand Paul isn’t worth supporting anymore… even as the actual Campaign is *just getting started*.

Half act like he’s a lost cause, others insist that Doom is Unavoidable, the remainder seem to want to smugly insist “they told us so”.

Maybe its that Libertarians are sort of perenially used to always watching the worst people win….

…and that the “best” candidates who lean in our direction are born losers….

but i just don’t get this retarded fatalism re: Paul, who – despite running a pretty shitty campaign thus far – hasn’t even had much of an opportunity to do anything at all.

As I said before…. most people here seem content to call the game over in the first quarter. Its so freaking lame. The defense will be “But we’re *realistic*”. sure. I don’t actually think he’ll win either. But that seem no reason not to remain enthusiastic for him to improve.

there is an article just below this one pointing out that Scott Walker is running at effectively 0 percent support.

And Rand has a measly 4%.

What would people have expected in June? Probably for walker to be in the low-double digits (12-15%) and Rand to be in the high single digits (~8%)

I think if you assume (as i do) that trump reflects a popular interest which is going to evaporate, then Rand is more likely to benefit from renewed interest than some of the peers that were considered “stronger” not long ago.

I agree with you that there’s a huge smug ‘I told you so’ faux-street smart douche factor going on here Gilmore but Rand has run a lousy campaign and Team Red seems to be intensely retarded this time around. Maybe we should wait until the first primary, I guess. Maybe the polls are just wildly off. That’s what happened in Britain’s election.

That’s sort of like all the nay-sayers who claimed Ron Paul could never have accomplished his agenda.

Take the war issue, for example. Paul said he’d withdraw from the middle east. Others have claimed he couldn’t do it. But as CINC, he could simply order the military – “Come home now” and it would be a legal and binding order.

Eliminating superfluous federal departments is another area where people claimed Ron Paul could not prevail. Perhaps. He certainly lacked the power to disband them. But he could order them to go home and sit on their hands. Congress would be spending money for the departments which were doing nothing. Literally, nothing. How long would that go on?

Reducing surveillance of Americans? Make it clear than anyone who engages in the activity will be fired and if possible, prosecuted. Offer promotions for whistle-blowers. Done.

None of these approaches is the normal “I’ll scratch your back if you scratch mine” approach to Washington politics. But then again, isn’t that approach the problem?

Wait, Hugh, are you saying that people vote for what/who makes them feel good because their vote is worthless from a statistical perspective anyway, so they might as well at least get some emotional value out of it?

It’s amazing, isn’t it, that one must (generally) be tested in order to drive, but to participate in a much more important and profoundly-dangerous activity there’s essentially no requirement for knowledge or competence.

Not only that, but it’s clear and convincing evidence that the average American is a fucking moron.

Personally, I’d favor poll testing.

For example, if you cannot name three candidates for president, you don’t get to vote. If you haven’t put more INTO the system (through taxes, etc.) than you’ve taken out (welfare), you don’t get to vote.

Voting is the process that determines policy and expenditures. If you’re too stupid, oblivious, uneducated, lazy to make even a minimal effort, if your sole goal is to take from they system you don’t contribute to it – you don’t get to decide what the policy should be or how the money is spent.

Paul needs to stop focusing on foreign policy during the primary. I know it is hard in a debate with 2 hours of foreign policy questions and one hour of what is your favorite soda…

He should be pivoting these questions to things like domestic spying, TSA, etc. Asking how removing our liberty has made us any safer. Instead he goes down the rat-hole of who we should or shouldn’t bomb.

I’m not sure he cares any more. I think he realizes he has no chance and is taking off the gloves, so to speak. And honestly, the TSA and domestic spying issue really isn’t that big a deal for either party’s primary voters. I wish it was, but there are a lot of issues people care more about (on the GOP side, this includes immigration, Iran/ISIS/foreign policy, abortion, and the economy).

I still approve of Rand Paul. But the Trump effect and the Hillary criminality has me jaded as fuck towards politics, politicians, and my fellow American voters. Maybe this is the intended effect? It’s going to take a lot of optimism to keep me able to give a fuck.

It probably should not be a surprise that Sen. Rand Paul would be performing well in the state (Michigan) that brought us libertarian conservative Rep. Justin Amash.

State boundaries are such arbitrary things. Often simply based on rivers. Doesn’t it seem odd that the people of certain states or even regions of the country would be so very statist while others would hold individualist views? Do they influence each other in informal public discussions? Do the all congregate to areas that match their general views? I’m sure there are studies but, fuck you, I’m not reading them.

We know that voters in national races are essentially idiots, choosing their picks based on some offhanded remark one said or the hairstyle of another. But locally sometimes the majorities get it so right or so wrong.

I couldn’t concur more if I had buckets of concurs. Rand won that thing because of the human mosquito cloud effect- not because the curly-headed freak was in Michigan. If Rand hits a pack just right he’d win on the corner of four states.

Some (views) are arbitrary, but others make sense. Michigan, having a large international border, and tons of wilderness might inspire a certain set of views. Texas/AZ/NM and to some extent CA might have similar mindsets based on sharing a border with Mexico. States that border that have very different rules (think Nevada and Utah) might also produce a lot of localized differences in views.

Your mood is like the sun masturbated soft fluffy stars on people and these soft fluffy star jizzies soaked into people and made them all turn today into Sunday so everyone could go out for a picnic where the shadows of the oaks and apple trees rippling gently on the striking green undulations carved by sweetly-murmuring brooks roiling under the love chirps of bobwhites.

I’m a perpetual cynic, but I think Paul did great in the debate with his HnR like “Christie will send men with guns to your house” comment. I’m hoping that hits home with a lot of people. Also, he was fantastic on the Iraq/middle east portion.

Rand Paul was doomed from the start. His entirely sensible and adult foreign policy ideas like not bombing everyone that looks at us funny and seeing if Iran complies with the deal before you “tear up the deal” have no place in the modern GOP.

Yes, I’m sure everyone else here knows just how much of a warrior for peace you really are. You’re just a toothless coward hiding in the Great White North wishing someone with actual power would listen to your ravings.

It looks bad for Rand but the demographics side of things gives me hope. Rand is doing bad (but still wining a straw poll) with close to the worst possible voter mix. Hopefully this voter mix will change in a month or two, and he will do better. Hopefully also his supporters will turn up like they did at the straw poll at a higher rate than the others.